1941 WLH, MS-62??????

Problem is...I only care to respond to specific parts of comments made by others so consider me a non-conforming atheist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Why would this coin be resubmitted? Not a big enough price difference in any of the unc. grades this coin would fall into to make the submission costs fiscally worthwhile.

 

Thanks for being honest. I strive for doing the same.
Please don't confuse my statements for absolute bashing of the TPG's. When these discussions happen it is easy to subject the thread with biased information. And when that happens people get defensive, I would say that I am guilty of that type of response.

I have a hard time believing that. If a person/ company has their set standards, it can only be subjective if the standards are being changed.

 

While I wish that was true, the fact is that each individual grader is going to have their own bias which will seep into the grading process even though they are following the company standards. For example, a grader who covets eye appeal is much more likely to grade bump a rainbow toned coin than the grader who places a premium on surface preservation and strike.

 

I also have a theory that if a grader's wife put him in the doghouse the night before, he is likely to give lower grades.

 

Why bump the coin? That is the Markets job. You don't think that the grader is over reaching?

 

They don’t use technical grading, they employ market grading where luster and eye appeal are factored into the grade. Why do you use a system that limits the grade of a coin based on surface preservation despite the fact that the luster and eye appeal are superior for the grade?

See how that works?

 

Eye appeal and luster are apart of my grading standards. Surface preservation is why we have coins graded. Surface preservation is the key to the difference between AU and BU.

 

No, that is your reason, and it is completely arbitrary. I don’t want two coins with nearly identical surfaces grade the same if one has premium gem luster and the other is a dipped washed out piece of dreck.

The market grading system allows the graders to evaluate each coin for all of its attributes, rather than simply looking for surface marks. It is more complex and more subjective, the two primary reasons why people resist it!

 

In the capped bust world (or more obvious: seated dollars), a coin can have choice original surfaces and another can be dipped to heck, but they are given the same grade for the same level of surface preservation. If it applies to some coins, then why does it not apply to all? Inconsistency!

Then why are so few circulated classic coins “properly” market-graded? If they are going to do it, should it not apply to every coin that graces the graders’ eyes?

 

incredible luster is no doubt a key factor in the grading process. Overlooking Key circulation damage is different, circulation damage is what makes an AU coin what it is.

 

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "If a person/company has their set standards, it can only be subjective if the standards are being changed."

According to a study done by PCGS, with no change in individual or company standards very few professional graders have been able to sustain an 80% accuracy (if I remember correctly). The accuracy increased to an acceptable percentage - 90 something - when another grader and a finalizer were added to the opinion.

Lehigh96, posted: "The market grading system allows the graders to evaluate each coin for all of its attributes, rather than simply looking for surface marks. It is more complex and more subjective, the two primary reasons why people resist it!"

IMO, It was done this way to help keep normal mortals from ever being able to grade as a market grader needs to know the up-to-date value of coins. Which come weakly struck, which are rare and which are common, etc.

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "incredible luster is no doubt a key factor in the grading process. (AGREE for most TPG's I know. Luster and eye appeal are more important than friction wear or weak strike!) Overlooking Key circulation damage is different, circulation damage is what makes an AU coin what it is." Actually NOT, damage does not lower an MS coin to AU unless of course, you are one of those out of the mainstream "net" graders. Not putting words in your mouth but perhaps you meant to write "circulation wear (?).

 

I find myself in the Technical side. Any wear is damage to the coin. It is the subject of many a blurred grade.

 

Dude, you don’t get to change numismatic nomenclature. The term damage is reserved for problem coins. Wear is the natural result of circulation and not considered damage by anyone in the numismatic community other than you.

When you type things like this, you cast yourself as a member of the lunatic fringe, like Ricko who calls all toning damage.

Insider was politely trying to suggest that you use the correct term “circulation wear”. Rather than defend an indefensible position, you could have just said “thank you!”

 

I could be mistaken but I believe that was just a quote from Ron Guth in a video not an actual study. Either way obviously there is truth to the view that having a team of three decide as they get to learn from each other and everyone has different strengths

 

To sum everything up here, the graders at each TPG can & DO make mistakes. They obviously cannot be perfect because they are human. There will be mistakes from time to time. Im not allowed to jump on CT, point out the mistakes and bad mouth anything they do because im just some hillbilly looking at photos on the net. Got it.


Insider said, that coin looks more like an AU.
I disagree, the obverse looks ok but the breast feathers are completely gone, there is NO LUSTER & the wreath leaves on the right side are all completely wore down & blended together. There arent any distinct lines seperating the top 2 leaves from each other. If you go to photograde and scroll through, you gotta go waaaaaaaaay down to the VF grade to see that much wear. If you'll notice i did say i wasnt going to castigate PCGS for this one because of the date/ mm.

 

There is a huge difference between circulated and uncirculated coins. The elements of grading are surface preservation, strike, luster, and eye appeal. Uncirculated coins are market graded taking all of these factors into consideration. Circulated coins don't have luster (except AU grades) or eye appeal as they rarely have attractive toning. So it stands to reason that surface preservation basically determines the grade of the coin in the circulated grade. Basically, it comes down to the loss of details and whether the cause was strike related or wear related.

It seems you are complaining that the TPGs don't expand their market grading system to reward "original surfaces?" Well guess what, they don't do that in the uncirculated grades either. There are probably millions of dipped uncirculated coins residing in TPG plastic right next to the mint state coins with original skins and they are usually graded equally. The only time the dipped coin is punished is when the dipping impairs the luster of the coin. Since you can't impair the luster of a circulated coin, there is no penalty for the dipped circulated coin.

In other words, the TPGs are consistent.

When you post statements like this, it leaves me with two thoughts. First, I don't at all believe your statement that you think the TPGs are correct 95% of the time. Second, your judgement of any TPG grade is solely dependent upon how it relates to your assigned grade. In other words, you think your grade is correct 100% of the time and the TPG grade is correct only when they agree with you.

 

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "I find myself in the Technical side. Any wear is damage to the coin. It is the subject of many a blurred grade."

I happen to know the individual who devised the original and true "Technical Grading System" in the 1970's to help identify coins. Folks who have not had the system explained to them in a grading class have absolutely no clue how it worked. None of the numismatists at ANACS in CO did either; yet they adopted the word for how they were grading - similar in some respects but no cigar! This is not a black spot on them. IMO, the ANACS crew when the company was sold was a true "brain trust" for Numismatics.

Anyway, when folks start misusing long established terms such as "damage" to describe another well established term such as "friction wear" it shows the ANA has failed to educate one more collector.

baseball21, posted: "I could be mistaken but I believe that was just a quote from Ron Guth in a video not an actual study. Either way obviously there is truth to the view that having a team of three decide as they get to learn from each other and everyone has different strengths."

That may be where I heard it but IMO, it was based on facts. AFAIK, our grading screen has a way to check the % agreement with the final grade, the # of coins graded each day, and other neat things.

heavycam.monstervam, posted: "Insider said, that coin looks more like an AU.
I disagree, the obverse looks ok but the breast feathers are completely gone, there is NO LUSTER & the wreath leaves on the right side are all completely wore down & blended together. There arent any distinct lines seperating the top 2 leaves from each other. If you go to photograde and scroll through, you gotta go waaaaaaaaay down to the VF grade to see that much wear. If you'll notice i did say i wasnt going to castigate PCGS for this one because of the date/ mm."

I am truly sorry to read this. As I posted, the ANA has failed all of us. I can shoot holes in your entire post but I have a better suggestion. Perhaps someone will post the coin in a new thread with the holder eliminated and let's have a guess the grade poll with the posters ID revealed and a requirement to back up their grade opinion with reasons. Marks, strike, luster, amount of lost detail, eye appeal and anything else. I'll wait until then to vote. This will be fun and educational!

PS I have an open mind.

 

I agree it seems very logical and makes a lot of sense. I just believe that’s where that quote came from, I don’t disagree with the premise at all.

 

I was merely making an aside based off your comment that overdipped coins should not be graded the same as original coins.

For circulated coins, I won’t call a dipped coin a “problem” coin per se, but I certainly would not assign a value equal to that of an original coin. You can see this as well in auction results for Capped Bust Halves. So there is a correlation between surface originality and value in a particular grade, but this is not reflected in the TPGs’ assigned grades. We have seen that they do market grade circulated coins in the 1818 half dollar thread where a cleaned/scratched F/VF coin got a grade of VG-10. So I ask again, if they market grade one coin according to its value, then why do they not do it for all of them?

As for my 95% statistic, my standards are those learned from people who have tought grading at the ANA summer seminar (such as Bill Fivaz) and from observing TPG-graded coins. So if a coin does not meet my standards, it therefore must not meet the standards set by the TPG and the rest of the numismatic community.

So attractive (read “colorful”) toning is the only thing (assuming no luster) that affects eye appeal? Are you so haughty in your strive for perfection that you seriously think that circulated coins have no eye appeal? When was the last time you bought a lowly circulated coin?

Circulated coins certainly an have eye appeal factor. Ten times out of ten I would prefer an original XF to a blast-white overdipped XF because the former simply has better eye appeal to me.

That’s not what I am saying. I think I have very well established that I am against market-grading. I am only pointing out that the TPGs are inconsistent in how they treat unoriginal surfaces.